John Maynard Keynes famously called for the euthanasia of the rentier, that is, the destruction of landowners who live on rental income. Does Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen advocate the same treatment for retirees trying to live on interest income? One wonders. The Feds policies have devastated seniors and others who have scrimped and saved only to find that inflation has eaten away at the paltry interest theyve earned from nominally safe financial assets, such as bank savings accounts, certificates of deposits, and U.S. Treasury bonds. Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs examines the havoc in the summer 2014 issue of The Independent Review.

The politicians constantly bark about their solicitude for those who are helpless and in difficulty through no fault of their own, Higgs writes. Yet scores of millions of people who save money to support themselves in old age now find themselves progressively despoiled by the very officials who purport to be their protectors.

Since late 2008, the Fed has pursued a zero interest-rate policy (ZIRP) aimed at keeping rates low. This may be good for the federal government, because it holds down the interest costs of the soaring national debt, but it has devastated ordinary savers, Higgs explains. Just compare savings yields and inflation. According to a June press release by Bureau of Labor Statistics, the all items Consumer Price Index is rising 2.1 percent per year. This rate exceeded the yields that month for savings accounts (1 percent or less), 5-year CDs (1.37 percent), and 5-year Treasury bonds (1.69 percent). Heres another way to view the scope of the problem. In the United States, every age group over 16 years old has seen a decline in labor participationwith one exception: those 55 years and older. ZIRP isnt the only cause that has sent Grandma and Grandpa back into the workforce, but it has certainly been a powerful stick to get them to seek out Help Wanted signs at the local mall.

Obamacare and Dodd-Frank have created enormous and costly uncertainty in the U.S. economy since their passage in 2010. Yet bad as they are, the Hawley-Smoot tariff hike of 1930 was worse. Independent Institute Research Fellow Burton A. Abrams, author of the award-winning book The Terrible 10: A Century of Economy Folly, considers the legislation to be one of the most destructive economic policies in American history.

The bill was publicly opposed by more than 1,000 professional economists and cleared the Senate by only two votes, but this didnt mitigate the economic damage it inflicted. The average tariff on protected goods was 53 percent, but the rates varied, Abrams writes in Investors Business Daily. In todays terms, the tax on a $20,000 imported automobile would be $10,600.

There were other negative consequences as well. The protectionist measure prompted retaliation from Americas trading partners, leading to a huge reduction in international trade and contributing to the Great Depression. As for the co-sponsors political fate, Hawley and Smoot lost their 1932 re-election bids, but by then the damage had already been done. The same is true of most bad economic policies, Abrams explains: Sadly, the negative consequences of those misguided policies can easily outlast the election.

President Obama told CNNs Jake Trapper in January that its up to Congress to decide whether or not to remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I narcotics, the most serious classification in law. The presidents evasion is apparent. As Independent Institute Research Fellow Wendy McElroy notes, Obama has several options available for decriminalizing pot.

The Obama administration could direct the Drug Enforcement Agency to reclassify marijuana to a Schedule III drug or even declassify it entirely, a power provided by the Controlled Substances Act; Obama could issue an executive order to declassify pot; Obama could order Attorney General Eric Holder to stop prosecuting pot growers and dealers. Each of these options has parallels to steps the White House has taken on other controversial issues. Clearly, the issue is one of political willnot legal authority.

Writes McElroy: Placing a young, inhaling Obama in jail would not have accomplished anything positive. Why is he willing to persecute todays young people for past behavior about which he jokes?

4) EVENT: Are There Lessons for Us Today from Nazi Gun Control? (Oakland, CA; 7/24/14)

Constitutional legal scholar, attorney, and historian Stephen P. Halbrook has labored in two trenches in the defense of the Second Amendment. On the legal front, he is a leading lawyer who has arguedand wonthree cases in the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of private gun ownership. On the scholarly front, he has authored numerous books and scholarly papers about the origins of the Second Amendment, the importance of the right to bear arms, and related issues.

The book tells the dramatic tale of gun laws in Germany before and after Hitlers rise to power and their role in one of the regimes most infamous campaigns before World War II: Kristallnacht. Oddly, the role of gun control in Weimar Germany and the Third Reich is a subject rarely mentioned in the voluminous literature on Nazism. Some readers have argued that Halbrooks book has important lessons for todays heated debate over gun control in the United States; others remain skeptical. Halbrook will address this issue head on in his July 24 presentationhis only scheduled public appearance in Northern California.